The internet has already changed our society in many ways. The most major change is communication. Throughout the years it has got much easier to connect with others than it used to be. Easy is how things are getting for us as a society, a lot of things we do or use are by the touch of a button whether on a computer or mobile phone. Technology itself and the internet are almost dominating our worlds, without them we would crumble. To some, the internet is a fascinating invention but to others it isn’t so great. However to some it is completely meaningless; those who do not interact with the internet or cannot, those who abide by old ways and ideas.
Since the 1970’s communication has improved rapidly. From sending telegrams, letters and smoke signals, the 1980’s brought mobiles. However they were not as cool as they look today, but like huge bricks with long aerials, texting wasn’t available until the decade later either. In the 1990’s there was a huge difference and a major invention kicked off; the internet. Web pages were made and bulletin boards, text messages and e-mails were also used. Web conferences and video conferences were deigned also. More improvements occurred in the 21st century, we don’t now only have the internet on a computer, we can access it on our mobile phones, there is also instant messaging and online gaming. File sharing is possible; saving individuals having to print them off and deliver them to where they need to go. Social network sites couldn’t be more popular.
The new and improved designs can help us to stay in touch however they also help youngsters of today to be lazy. 30 years ago people would have to be more physical, to see someone it could only be done by physically walking around to that persons house. Now we don’t have to do that we have webcams and video calling. It doesn’t just make kids lazy but according to ‘Marc Prensky’ students no longer want to put effort into their studies, they would rather do the minimum that is required. In the long term this is dangerous and poses serious threats to our collective identity. In Prensky’s article he discusses the differences between today’s adolescents and elders. He suggests that we are almost like and entirely different culture and nationality because of the technology that we use. It is because the elder generation have not grown up with technology they are ‘digital immigrants’ to it. Whereas the younger generation are ‘digital natives’ who constantly use the internet and have learnt how to use it since they have been physically able. Students also disagree with how they are taught. ‘Digital immigrant’ teachers have stuck to old methods of teaching; step by step guides, taking it slow. Students today prefer to be quicker, because of the speed they learn with the internet. They want instant gratitude, they do not know how to wait for things as with the new technologies there is no waiting. Children haven’t experienced waiting days, weeks or months to hear from somebody or to receive a letter and so the most they may wait is a few hours to receive a text. It is not their fault they haven’t experienced old ways which elders constantly say is the only way.
In Prensky’s article he demonstrates how in the long term these new technologies could damage the way students are taught. He says the way to teach students now and in the future would be by video games. He claims that this is the only way they want to learn as they spend more time on the internet and watching TV then reading books. New methods have to be introduced to grab students attention in order for them to learn quicker.
New technologies such as virtual worlds on the internet is a way of meeting someone without actually being present. Lectures can be taught whilst sitting at home on a computer screen. This may be useful for students who cannot make it to school or for teachers even. Characters can be made to represent individuals to show that someone is logging into the lecture or lesson. However by making characters instead of physically attending school is one way in which our identity’s can be lost and therefore our collective identity too.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Digital Natives, Digital immigrants.-Marc Prensky
This article describes todays younger and older generations as two seperate cultures. The young generation are stated as digital natives; where computer games and e-mails are integral parts of their lives. The digital immigrants are those who have tried to pick up these new technologies later on in their lives, who have become fascinated with the new aspects, however were not born into them. Digital Immigrants use technology as a backup, as a second resort to finding information, they prefer to read through books than start on the internet which digital natives would do first.
On a larger scale Marc Prensky tells us that we are socialized differently to the older generation and that we are learning a new language which is likely to stick. This language isn't the same as the change which happens through generations already, e.g change in hairstyles or clothes, its a completely new way of life; we are unlikely to go back now. The bigger problem is in education; "digital immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language(of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language." Natives want to learn quickly and recieve information fast, they are not used to sitting down and studying instructions they expect or prefer a networked way of learning and want "frequent rewards". However the immigrants insist on teaching slowly as they belive their way is the only way and they have no gratitude towards the native's way of learning.
Marc Prensky belives that a solution to the struggles of teaching a population with a different language, which is digital, is to change old ways of teaching and use more technology to get the information through. He talks about the success in using video games in order to teach people how to use computer aided design software. Individuals who were shown the software found it a steep learning curve to work out how to use it. Therefore the article suggests it is the methodology that needs to be modified to adapt to the native's usual learning tecnhiques.
Prensky describes how if a child can remember names of pokemon then they can remember the details of each nation in the world. He belives it's all in the presentation and that if these digital immigrants really want to teach the natives of today they need to change their methods and stop
groaning about how things were different in their day.
On a larger scale Marc Prensky tells us that we are socialized differently to the older generation and that we are learning a new language which is likely to stick. This language isn't the same as the change which happens through generations already, e.g change in hairstyles or clothes, its a completely new way of life; we are unlikely to go back now. The bigger problem is in education; "digital immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language(of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language." Natives want to learn quickly and recieve information fast, they are not used to sitting down and studying instructions they expect or prefer a networked way of learning and want "frequent rewards". However the immigrants insist on teaching slowly as they belive their way is the only way and they have no gratitude towards the native's way of learning.
Marc Prensky belives that a solution to the struggles of teaching a population with a different language, which is digital, is to change old ways of teaching and use more technology to get the information through. He talks about the success in using video games in order to teach people how to use computer aided design software. Individuals who were shown the software found it a steep learning curve to work out how to use it. Therefore the article suggests it is the methodology that needs to be modified to adapt to the native's usual learning tecnhiques.
Prensky describes how if a child can remember names of pokemon then they can remember the details of each nation in the world. He belives it's all in the presentation and that if these digital immigrants really want to teach the natives of today they need to change their methods and stop
groaning about how things were different in their day.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Internet and Collective identity
Communication is alot easier now then it was in the 1970's or before. In the 1970's letters and telegrams were the most popular way of communicating with friends and family. Morse code and smoke signals were stil used, whereas in the 80's fax and mobile phones were invented. Although mobile phones existed text messaging wasn't available until the 1990's when online chat occured with news groups and bulletin boards. E-mail was introduced aswell as web pages and web conferences, yet nowadays in the 21st century we have all these types of communications and more such as; online gaming, social networking sites e.g facebook and twitter, we have blogs, and file sharing sites along with virtual worlds.
Huge shifts that have occured may seem recent but actually have been manifesting for a number of years. The digital switchover is an example of a technological shift, people now have to have digital to be able to watch the television. Artefacts can now be downloaded people do not consume as many as they used to. Sabbah talked about 'new media' as far back as 1985, stating that there was no longer a mass audience receiving messages they were given, but that audiences now select what they want to hear/see because of the multiplicity of sources.
Today, due to new media sources, we live in a trans-medial society where we are exposed to new forms of technology such as simulations and sx cinema and therefore we begin to have new representations.
In the long term we may be losing our collective identity to the internet. Shifts that occur can affect the our culture as consumers become prosumers, the audience becomes active rather than passive, and experts may not necessarily be experts any more as everyones works or ideas become valid. This may be due to the audience having more freedom with their feedback. In the old media there is a time delay between broadcast and the third party however now it is a two-way intgeraction between a broadcast and the audience. Media are no longer controlled by ologopolies but by the produser. It used to be the bigger audiences that were more valuable, however in the new media it is the smaller communities such as facebook friends or monile phone contacts. The internet contributes to the losses of copywrite as it is so easy to take others works and 'mash' them up with other works and pass them off as one's own. And so maybe this means the end of the artefact.
Huge shifts that have occured may seem recent but actually have been manifesting for a number of years. The digital switchover is an example of a technological shift, people now have to have digital to be able to watch the television. Artefacts can now be downloaded people do not consume as many as they used to. Sabbah talked about 'new media' as far back as 1985, stating that there was no longer a mass audience receiving messages they were given, but that audiences now select what they want to hear/see because of the multiplicity of sources.
Today, due to new media sources, we live in a trans-medial society where we are exposed to new forms of technology such as simulations and sx cinema and therefore we begin to have new representations.
In the long term we may be losing our collective identity to the internet. Shifts that occur can affect the our culture as consumers become prosumers, the audience becomes active rather than passive, and experts may not necessarily be experts any more as everyones works or ideas become valid. This may be due to the audience having more freedom with their feedback. In the old media there is a time delay between broadcast and the third party however now it is a two-way intgeraction between a broadcast and the audience. Media are no longer controlled by ologopolies but by the produser. It used to be the bigger audiences that were more valuable, however in the new media it is the smaller communities such as facebook friends or monile phone contacts. The internet contributes to the losses of copywrite as it is so easy to take others works and 'mash' them up with other works and pass them off as one's own. And so maybe this means the end of the artefact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
